IXP

Fri Apr 24 02:17:17 UTC 2009

In a message written on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:48:28AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i think i saw several folks, not just stephen, say virtual wire was how
> they'd do an IXP today if they had to start from scratch.  i know that
> for many here, starting from scratch isn't a reachable worldview, and so
> i've tagged most of the defenses of shared subnets with that caveat.  the
> question i was answering was from someone starting from scratch, and when
> starting an IXP from scratch, a shared subnet would be just crazy talk.

I disagree.

Having no shared subnet renders an exchange switching platform
useless to me.  If I have to go to all the work of configuring both
ends in a exchange point operator provisioning system (and undoubtly
being billed for it), assigning a /30, and configuring an interface
on my router then I will follow that procedure and order a hunk of
fiber.  Less points of failure, don't have to deal with how the
exchange operator runs their switch, and I get the bonus of no
shared port issues.

The value of an exchange switch is the shared vlan.  I could see
an argument that switching is no longer necessary; but I can see
no rational argument to both go through all the hassles of per-peer
setup and get all the drawbacks of a shared switch.  Even exchanges
that took the small step of IPv4 and IPv6 on separate VLAN's have
diminished value to me, it makes no sense.

It's the technological equvilient of bringing everyone into a
conference room and then having them use their cell phones to call
each other and talk across the table.  Why are you all in the same
room if you don't want a shared medium?

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090423/6dae5322/attachment.sig>